INDEX BY TITLE

I live in the Midwest which is Big Ten country. Once conference play starts virtually every Big Ten game is televised in my region and I commit myself to try and watch all of them. I have three televisions set up as some games are being played at the same time. I have no bias or affiliation to any Big Ten team as I am a lifelong Notre Dame fan (I include ND games in my viewing schedule as well). My comments and reports are qualified only by my love of the game and an extreme commitment to watching and following Big Ten football.

Monday, October 19, 2015

BIG TEN FOOTBALL ATS WHAT HAPPENED WEEK 7

WHAT HAPPENED

I split at 1-1 last Saturday.
Great day for watching football but something has to be done about the
targeting rule. It’s ruining the game to point where it’s almost not worth
watching any more.

I predicted Rutgers to win, 37-35.
I’d like to say it was my forecasting prowess that got me the win here. But the
truth is, I could have saved myself some handicapping time and just flipped a
coin. Geez, what a couple of crappy teams. Especially on defense. One team made
about twenty mistakes, the other nineteen. Who can pick a winner out of that
pile of ineptitude? On one Rutgers TD run, two Indiana players took each other
out of the play by running into each other. Indiana had a twenty plus lead in
the second half and promptly botched a punt and served up two interceptions--
just in the nick of time for a Rutgers comeback.

Ohio St. 38Penn St. 10(Ohio St. -18.5)

I predicted Ohio St. to win,
24-17. Actually, my vision of this game wasn’t that far off. I figured Penn St.
to move the ball against the Buckeyes, and they did have some success on the
ground. But I also expected Penn St. QB Christian Hackenberg to get out of the
pocket and connect on a long throw or two downfield, and that didn’t happen.
But I will say, Hackenberg gave it a good try. I’ve been hard on the kid, but
recently he’s playing with a competitiveness that wasn’t always there. An early
Penn St. TD run called back for holding didn’t help my cause. I also expected Ohio
St.’s recent offensive struggles to continue against a solid Penn St. defense. QB
Cardale Jones did struggle a bit, but his backup, J.T. Barrett came in and hurt
the Penn St. defense (and my chances for a cover) more with his legs than with
his arm. Ohio St. is just a better team and that was slowly displayed over the
course of the game as the Buckeyes scored two TDs in the final seven minutes.

THE NON-PLAYS

Michigan St. 27Michigan 23(Michigan -7)

I predicted Michigan to win, 27-14.
Well, if you’re any kind of college football fan you know what happened. It
didn’t really matter as it pertains to my prediction, though. Michigan St.
played better than I expected. On both sides of the ball. Hard to believe the
Spartans couldn’t put away the likes of Purdue and Rutgers way before the final
minutes. I called for the banged up O-line to have difficulties protecting QB
Connor Cook, but for the most part it had no such trouble. Consequently, Cook
had a good game. Michigan QB Jake Rudock played Ok – neither QB threw the
interception I called for – but as I alluded to in my prediction write-up,
Michigan St. had the advantage at the QB position. Once again – for about the
sixth time this season – Rudock missed an open receiver on a long TD pass. And
while it’s not usually the QBs fault when a pass is batted down at the line,
analyst Chris Spielman pointed out that Rudock wasn’t making a very good effort
to find a passing lane. But on the other hand, Rudock did make some nice reads
and throws. Just Rudock being Rudock. Good, but not the “great” QB this
Michigan team needs to get to the upper echelon. This was a good game that will
long be remembered for the crazy finish so it’s nice to have witnessed it as it
unfolded. But I don’t really like to see an outcome decided that way. For all
practical purposes, Michigan won the game.

Nebraska 48Minnesota
25(Minnesota -2)

I predicted Nebraska to win, 24-21.
I was correct in picking the dog to win, but I didn’t figure Nebraska to hang 48
on what was supposed to be a good Minnesota defense. Nebraska QB Tommy
Armstrong didn’t throw any of the two interceptions I called for and the
‘Huskers had their way running the ball. I was correct in identifying
Minnesota’s strong offensive showing the previous Saturday against Purdue as
fool’s gold, the Gophers only managed 65 yards on the ground, but was surprised
that QB Mitch Leidner actually passed the ball well, despite throwing two late
interceptions. This game serves as a good barometer when comparing scores to
determine the conference pecking order. It looked like an even matchup coming
into this game, but obviously Nebraska is a much better team.

Iowa 40Northwestern
10(Iowa -1)

I predicted Iowa to win,
21-19. Another blowout that appeared to be an even matchup going in. Iowa is
gaining momentum as its O-line is improving, and Northwestern is stagnating as
its QB is not improving. I said in my prediction write-up that I liked Iowa to
win because of an edge at the QB position. I wouldn’t say QB play is the sole reason
for the Iowa rout, but I will say that Northwestern struggled at the position
and it cost them. He’s just a freshman so he’ll get better. The past few seasons has made
me skeptical of both of these teams’ early success this season. My skepticism
is starting to justify with Northwestern. I’m waiting on Iowa. Hawkeye fans are
talking “running the table” as they look at a relatively easy remaining
schedule. We’ll see.

Wisconsin 24Purdue
7(Wisconsin -23)

I predicted Wisconsin to win,
34-17. I was right on the willy with the point spread but the scoring came in a
little lower than I called for.And the
game went much like I predicted in my write-up with a few exceptions. I
expected Wisconsin to cure their running game problems against a Purdue defense
that ranks last in the conference against the run. Didn’t really happen that
way. Wisconsin relies on QB Joel Stave, which isn’t the worst thing; Stave
ain’t bad. But I think the weak running game is gonna cost them a game or two eventually.
It’s getting near the time of the season when teams like Purdue start to go in
the tank, especially if the coach’s job status starts to become a media topic.
I haven’t heard any loud grumblings about HC Darrell Hazell and the
Boilermakers showed no signs of quitting in this game, though.

Notre Dame 41USC
31(Notre Dame -4.5)

I predicted Notre Dame to
win, 27-24. Nice win for the Irish against a talented USC team. The game went
back and forth with Notre Dame showing the heart to pull it out in the end. I
was correct about HC Brian Kelly dialing up some great plays as the Irish
scored even more than I called for. I said I didn’t think QB DeShone Kizer was
where he needed to be yet in order to consider Notre Dame an upper echelon team.
This game changed my mind. The kid’s ready. Great game, great heart. The Notre
Dame defense had its moments, both good and bad. Maybe it’s ‘cuz I’m too “old
school”, or maybe it’s ‘cuz I like Notre Dame and want them uphold some
unreasonable standard, but I wish the Notre Dame defenders would just get up
and go back to the huddle after making a nice tackle rather than taking a bow
for the cameras.

ATS

FTC
DOLLARS

In this section I track the
results of my predictions that qualify as “plays” ATS (any predicted point
spread that differs from the closing line by seven or more points). I’ve also included
the results (conference games only) of some unsuspecting prognosticators that I
found on line. The standings are based on how many “FTC” dollars are won. For a
more detailed explanation of this section and the definition of a “play”,
please refer to the “FTC $ Q&A” tab at the top of this post or click here→ FTC$ Q&A.

Tom Deinhart had a nice
Saturday and left me at the bottom of the standings as he went 3-1, winning
with Michigan St, Iowa, and Rutgers, and losing with Wisconsin. Brent Yarina
remains in first place, but we all gained ground on Brent as he was the only
one to turn in a losing Saturday.

Links to last Saturday’s
predictions from all contestants can be found in the “Details” section below.

The full list of last
Saturday’s predictions from each contestant can be found by clicking the link
listed under “website”.

SEASON STATS

Listed below are stats for
various categories that I’ll be tracking. Deinhart gained ground in the “Straight
Up” category as he went a perfect 6-0 last Saturday. I was 5-1. If not for an
instantly famous botched punt I’d be the one who was 6-0 and Deinhart would
have been 5-1. Notice that Brent Yarina sits at the bottom of the “Spread
Record” category at 6-12 for the season. This is why I like my “Play” system.
Brent is in the money using the “Play” system. But disregarding the “Play”
system and forcing every pick would have him financially buried.

Again, links to last
Saturday’s predictions from all contestants can be found in the “Details” section.

SPREAD RECORD

W

L

STRAIGHT UP

W

L

SEAN MERRIMAN
(btn)

9

9

BRENT YARINA
(btn)

15

3

TOM DEINHART
(btn)

8

9

SEAN MERRIMAN
(btn)

14

4

FROM THE COUCH

7

11

TOM DEINHART
(btn)

14

4

BRENT YARINA
(btn)

6

12

FROM THE COUCH

13

4

WITHIN 7

W

L

CLOSEST

W

L

BRENT YARINA
(btn)

6

12

SEAN MERRIMAN
(btn)

8

10

TOM DEINHART
(btn)

6

12

FROM THE COUCH

7

11

FROM THE COUCH

5

13

BRENT YARINA
(btn)

6

12

SEAN MERRIMAN
(btn)

5

13

TOM DEINHART
(btn)

6

11

SPREAD RECORD-
This category disregards my seven point “play” system and simply displays the
ATS record.

STRAIGHT UP-
Theoutright winner, disregarding
the spread.

WITHIN 7-This
category tracks how many times a predicted point spread was within seven points
of the actual final score differential. Why does this matter? Because one can
never lose in the play category if the prediction is within 7 points. 35
percent is about average in this category. Close to 50 percent is excellent.

CLOSEST – This
category tracks the number of times a predicted point spread was more accurate
than the Vegas point spread. This category differs from the Spread Record
category because it’s possible to be on the correct side of the spread yet not
be as accurate as the oddsmakers. EX: If I predict Michigan by 12, the spread
is Michigan by 6, and Michigan wins by 7, I get a win in the spread record
category. I get a loss in the closest category because the oddsmakers’ point spread
(7-6=1) was closer to the final
score differential than my prediction (12-7=5).

Any games that go into
overtime will be considered a tie when calculating the “closest” and “within 7”
category. The actual score will be used, however, for the other two categories.

NOTRE DAME

I predict Notre Dame games
along with the Big Ten conference games. My Notre Dame predictions aren’t
included in the above standings and statistics because my competition doesn’t
predict Notre Dame games. So I’ve separately listed the stats for my Notre Dame
game predictions below.